Moore v. Robinson
| Decision Date | 30 June 1879 |
| Citation | 1879 WL 8551,92 Ill. 491 |
| Parties | THOMAS F. MOOREv.JAMES P. ROBINSON. |
| Court | Illinois Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
APPEAL from the Circuit Court of Jefferson county; the Hon. TAZEWELL B. TANNER, Judge, presiding.
Mr. C. H. PATTON, for the appellant:
The appellee is liable upon his agreement to return the money, notwithstanding there was no fault on his part. Hale v. Rawson, 4 Com. Bench, 93; Bute v. Thompson, 13 Exch. 486; Hills v. Sughrue, 15 Id. 253; 2 Chit. Cont. (11 Am. Ed.) 1074, and note u; Id. 1086, and cases in notes; Thurnell v. Balbirnie, 2 Exch. 787; Worsley v. Wood, 6 T. R. 710; 2 Par. Cont. 673; Shubrick v. Salmond, 3 Burrows R. 1637; Hand v. Bayne, 4 Wharton (Pa.) 204; Beebe v. Johnson, 19 Wend. 500; Harmony v. Bingham, 2 Kernan, 107, 115; Maryon v. Caster, 4 Carr. & P. 393; Dehler v. Held, 50 Ill. 491; Swartz v. Saunders, 46 Ill. 21; Bacon et al. v. Cobb et al. 45 Ill. 47.
Assumpsit by appellant against appellee, to recover money paid on the following agreement:
+-------------------------------------------+
¦“$1000.¦Springfield, Ill., Jan. 26, 1875.¦
+-------------------------------------------+
Received of Thomas Moore one thousand dollars, in consideration of my agreeing hereby to defend his brother, James Moore, who is indicted for having in possession and passing counterfeit money, and secure his acquittal and release from said charge in full, and forever keep him harmless from the same. And I specially agree that he shall be set at full liberty at the June term of U. S. District Court, A. D. 1875. Six hundred dollars of said amount is paid to me in cash, and the other four hundred paid in a note of the said Thomas Moore, due first day of July, A. D. 1875. I further and specially agree that if said James Moore is not released at said time, I will pay back to said Thomas Moore the six hundred dollars paid me in cash, and deliver to him his note for four hundred dollars given this day, with ten per cent interest from the date hereof.
+-----------------------------+
¦[Signed]¦JAMES P. ROBINSON.” ¦
+-----------------------------+
James Moore did not appear at the June term, 1875, or at any subsequent term of the United States District Court, to answer to the indictment pending against him, and has not been tried upon or released from said charge. Neither appellant nor appellee is shown to be in anywise in fault for the non-appearance of James Moore to answer to the indictment. It is very clear that the only contingency upon which appellee was entitled to retain the $600 paid him, and to collect...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Davis v. Webber
...was valid, the purpose having failed, recovery could not be had on its terms, but only on a quatum meruit. 23 S.W. 790; 22 S.W. 85; 92 Ill. 491; Weeks, Attys. 699; 1 Am. & Eng. Law (2 Ed.), 427; 8 Misc. (N. Y.) 533; 73 Md. 9; 7 W.Va. 202; 59 Barb. 574; 41 N.Y.S. Ct. 452; 28 S.W. 227; 20 A. ......
-
Burner v. Northwestern Bible And Missionary Training School
... ... to be the theory of the decisions in Russell v ... Bush, 196 Ala. 309, 71 So. 397; Moore v ... Robinson, 92 Ill. 491; Butterfield v. Byron, ... 153 Mass. 517, 27 N.E. 667, 12 L.R.A. 571, 25 Am. St. 654; ... Woodford v. Kelley, 18 S.D ... ...
-
Watkins & Thurman v. Napier
... ... C.) 24 Fed. 893; Jones v. Transportation Co. (Mich.) 16 N. W. 893; Daggett v. Johnson, 49 Vt. 345; Manufacturing Co. v. Brush, 43 Vt. 528; Moore v. Robinson, 92 Ill. 491; Wettermulgh v. Knickerbocker Building Ass'n, 2 Bosw. (N. Y.) 381. The proposition does not, seem to have been decided in ... ...
-
Goodin v. Hays
...has been prevented by the client, or other fact not his fault, from fully discharging the services contemplated by his contract. Moore v. Robinson, 92 Ill. 491; Duke v. 8 Mo. App. 296; Quint v. Mining Co., 4 Nev. 304; Scobey v. Ross, 5 Ind. 445; Telegraph Co. v. Semmes, 73 Md. 9, 20 A. 127;......